Ukrainian oral speech of modern youth in Ukraine and abroad: unsteady norms of pronunciation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the Ukrainian oral speech at the synchronic level, in particular, to the spoken features of the Ukrainian language. On the basis of a sociolinguistic survey, the attempt to reveal, analyze, and describe the deviations that appear as a result of violations of unstable pronouncing norms has been made, in particular, hushing sounds before sibilants and vice versa. Additionally, the coronal consonant [d] is considered before sibilants depending on the sphere of activity of the respondents and their living environment.The object of our research is the Ukrainian pronunciation of young philologists in Ukraine and of the youth of various professions in Transnistria, Moldova, and Canada.The subject of the research is the usage of the pronouncing norms of the modern Ukrainian language, in particular the sound combination (hushing sounds before sibilants, sibilants before hushing sounds and the transformation of coronal [d],[d'] in affricates before hushing sounds and sibilants).The sociolinguistic (social surveys), descriptive, comparative methods, and the intake of quantitative calculations through which the material is collected, recorded, and analyzed have been used in our research.The predecessors who studied certain issues (first of all, in social and phonetic description of Ukrainian speech) are N.I. Tots’kа, L.I. Prokopova [13], and M.M. Fashchenko [14].The survey was conducted among the students of the Philological Department of the Bulgarian and Ukrainian branches of I.I. Mechnikov National University of Odessa. In addition, the Ukrainian students of different courses and faculties of T. Shevchenko Transnistrian State University (Tiraspol, Transnistria), Alec Russo Balti State University (Moldova), and the youth of various spheres in Canada (Toronto) took part in the survey. On the basis of social survey (which was recorded on an audio medium), stable and weak norms of pronunciation are singled out. Moreover, the important verbal problems and their similarities are indicated.Thus, the norms of pronunciation are closely linked to the field of activity of the youth: philologists make twice less mistakes than other students do.The modern youth of Transnistria, Moldova, Ukraine, and Canada showed the correct pronunciation of hushing sounds before sibilants, and vice versa, in particular, Transnistrian students possess the norms of pronouncing sibilants before hushing sounds (74%), hushing sounds before sibilants (66%), but difficulties appear when pronouncing coronal [d] before hushing sounds and sibilants. The last rule is used only by the students of philological department of Ukrainian language and literature, therefore, we treat it as the most frequently violated. The same rules of pronunciation of sound combinations (which are not fixed by the current norms of pronouncing, but were recorded for a long time in writing in the 19th century) are the most stable in oral speech. The same pronouncing peculiarities of sound combinations, which were not recorded in literature works or were recorded occasionally, belong to unstable ones, even though they have become the pronouncing norm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".